View Full Version : Politicians Who Vilify The Wealthy
Every four years we are bombarded by political ads that blame all of the nation's ills on the wealthy.
You know the routine: "The wealthiest Americans receive all of the tax breaks."
"The wealthiest Americans don't pay taxes while the middle class carries the tax burden of this country on its shoulders."
These statements make for compelling speeches and can certainly incite the faithful to new heights of hysteria, but in actuality, nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/16/na-politicians-who-vilify-the-wealthy/
The first comment below the article is somewhat of a cause for concern:
Posted by ( Darby ) on September 16, 2008 at 7:49 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
If the country's ills are not the fault of the wealthy, whose fault is it? You don't think the poor people run the country do you?
The article stated that 83% of those who file for income tax make less than 75k/year. That means that potentially up to 83% of the US population (keeping in mind that people under 18 have to file) have the voting power to run this country.
Of course, things are never quite that black and white. ;)
firetown
09-23-2008, 10:11 PM
Villifying the wealthy is communist guilt tripping.
Villifying the wealthy is communist guilt tripping.
Yet it's effective. :)
kerrin
10-07-2008, 07:00 PM
The article stated that 83% of those who file for income tax make less than 75k/year.
One can manipulate the numbers any which way. The flip side of these facts is that the top 5% are paying more the 60% of all income taxes to the government. The IRS collected $1,236,259,000,000 in income tax alone in 2006... it wasn't primarily from people making less then 75K, was it?
If tax is necessary a flat sales tax is the only fair tax. Income tax is decidedly evil.
firetown
10-07-2008, 07:08 PM
I have very unique opinions on this. I have been very well off and very broke. I come from a family of 1/2 rich Jews and 1/2 broke Germans and grew up listeing to jealousy, and also watching true class on the Jewish side.
Anybody who goes against the successful is IMO a loser.
You cannot rise to someone's level and trash them, you are a loser.
Obama is a true loser who wants loser's votes.
kerrin
10-07-2008, 08:05 PM
I'm curious about your "unique opinions" but find them hard to follow.
Anybody who goes against the successful is IMO a loser.
This would depend on how you define 'successful' and 'loser.'
A 'successful' person, financially speaking, could have become so through through less then honorable means. If you thought they obtained 'success' through less then honorable means would you not "go against" or challenge them?
Obama is a true loser who wants loser's votes.
He did win election to the Senate. This would seem to refute your claim that he is a "loser." Also, he is quite wealthy, which would also seem to disagree with your idea of a 'loser.'
I would also take issue with you characterizing people without financial success the "losers" Obama seeks votes from. How would you defend this?
firetown
10-07-2008, 08:09 PM
In politics it is so easy to get "loser's votes".
kerrin
10-07-2008, 08:15 PM
In politics it is so easy to get "loser's votes".
Again I ask you to define "loser."
It seems in your statement you are separating yourself from the group you refer to as "losers." So what sets you apart? What make you not a loser?
I'm not accusing you of anything, just trying to understand the rational behind your statements.
firetown
10-13-2008, 04:42 PM
Again I ask you to define "loser."
It seems in your statement you are separating yourself from the group you refer to as "losers." So what sets you apart? What make you not a loser?
I'm not accusing you of anything, just trying to understand the rational behind your statements.
What I consider a loser is based on the state of mind. Loser or not has little to do with money, but success how you define it. Sad to say, but the ones in my family I consider losers are the ones not happy with their lives, doing nothing about it and slandering those who do better than them.
I know many low income people who are perfectly happy, raising their families with limited means. That is a great thing. You don't need a lot of money to be happy. But when someone is miserable, points fingers and bitches all day about that government without taking actions to improve their own lives, that is what I define a loser.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 05:49 PM
Sad to say, but the ones in my family I consider losers are the ones not happy with their lives, doing nothing about it and slandering those who do better than them.
That is said. They need a little Ayn Rand objectivism!
But when someone is miserable, points fingers and bitches all day about that government without taking actions to improve their own lives, that is what I define a loser.
Hummm... but you said Obama was a "true loser." I don't see him doing any of these things.
firetown
10-13-2008, 05:52 PM
That is said. They need a little Ayn Rand objectivism!
Hummm... but you said Obama was a "true loser." I don't see him doing any of these things.
He consistenly appeals to that mindset. The "people like you" comments.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 06:00 PM
He consistenly appeals to that mindset. The "people like you" comments.
That's just politics. All politicians appeal to a certain mindset in order to win. I don't think this makes Obama a "true loser." McCain will try and appeal to a certain mindset that relies on government to legislate their morals.
firetown
10-13-2008, 07:17 PM
That's just politics. All politicians appeal to a certain mindset in order to win.
Do you really believe that the tax breaks he suggests are affordable by America? Do you think HE believes they are affordable?
kerrin
10-13-2008, 07:27 PM
Do you really believe that the tax breaks he suggests are affordable by America? Do you think HE believes they are affordable?
Well we owe $10+ trillion...why not $10 trillion more?
If the government needs more cash they can tax or borrow to get it. Bush chose only to borrow. What a great "conservative." ;)
McCain will do the same for nation-building projects, no child left behind, and any other bailout programs the borrow-and-spend "conservatives" come up with. What's $700 billion, chump change? Can we afford that?
firetown
10-13-2008, 07:40 PM
Well we owe $10+ trillion...why not $10 trillion more?
If the government needs more cash they can tax or borrow to get it. Bush chose only to borrow. What a great "conservative." ;)
McCain will do the same for nation-building projects, no child left behind, and any other bailout programs the borrow-and-spend "conservatives" come up with. What's $700 billion, chump change? Can we afford that?
Long term speaking ... maybe. But it depends on how you manage it and what decisions you make. I trust McCain to do that more than someone who suggests a plan making absolutely no sense, just because it gives the average voter a warm feeling that the government will decide to get them a little closer to the more financially successful. America is based on free market, but real free market, not too much government deciding to "give away money" rather than eliminating corruption on the top.
Reform is needed where government has been interfering with free market.
We need real and long term solutions.
kerrin
10-13-2008, 08:03 PM
America is based on free market, but real free market, not too much government deciding to "give away money" rather than eliminating corruption on the top.
So government buying banks with this bailout bill isn't "giving away money?" Are you kidding me?
America's economic system was based on a free-market in the constitution but does not resemble a free-market anymore. Government control of interest rates is another kind of tax and is not free-market. The Federal Reserve is not free-market.
"...eliminating corruption on the top" would be letting banks that were greedy go chapter 11. "real free-market" would be allowing the market to buy bankrupt banks. The Republicrats "bailout" bill is not free-market and absolutely is "giving away money!"
I trust neither Obama or McCain because they are more of the same...spend at the individual tax payers expense.
We need real and long term solutions.
Hey, we agree on something! But you dismissed my point as being "long term."
Long term solutions will come by eliminating neocons from control of Republican party and including other political opinions in the race. Vote third-party that's where true 'change' will come from.